Re: Odin as a Trojan Prince

--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@..., tgpedersen@... wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Where I come from, a story is either true or false. I don't
> understand Klingenbergs epistemology: What exactly is "non-history"
> and in italics at that)? The question is: Is Snorri's story of Odin
> true or false?
>
> OK, it's _factually_ false. It is evidently a late construct -- a
> piece of literary fiction, inspired partly by Germanic traditions,
> partly by Graeco-Roman influences, and framed in a Christian

context.
The evidence?

> > Klingenberg does not answer that question, he just assumes as
> obvious that he did.
>
> Did you read the article or just the summary I quoted?

Get off the soap box, Piotr. It doesn't become you. And yes, of
course I read the article.

>
> > Therefore: the question is open and Snorri's stories are as true

as

> those of Herodotus, as far as I'm concerned
>
> What can I say to such a dogmatic statement of your uncritical

trust

> in Snorri? "As far as I'm concerned" is the key phrase here.
> Unfortunately, many people won't take your word for it.

What can I say to such a dogmatic statement that Herodotus is more
reliable than Snorri (I assume that's what you mean, not the
opposite)?
I repeat, as far as I'm concerned, Snorri's stories are as true as
those of Herodotus. The opposite statement, that either writer is to
be preferred, would be dogmatic. I'm critical of Herodotus too.
And "my word" does'nt enter into the picture. If other people insist
on being biased, what's it to me?

>
>
> Piotr

Torsten